Guest Post by Lutfur adviser Kazim Zaidi : A civil war that started in Labour risks spilling onto the streets

This is a guest post by Kazim Zaidi, Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s adviser who was Political Assistant to the Tower Hamlets Labour group when Lutfur ran the council as a member of the party between 2008-10. He lives in Bethnal Green.

*NOTE: Thursday, May 29, 4pm: Kazim Zaidi has asked me if he can clarify that while he continues to advise Lutfur Rahman on a voluntary basis, he has not been a paid adviser (in receipt of public funds) since March.

In 2010 it was the infamous “dodgy dossier” submitted by his 3rd placed rival that claimed Lutfur Rahman had been “brainwashed” by fundamentalists. These claims led to Rahman’s summary deselection as Labour’s candidate but have never been investigated.

Then there were claims of electoral fraud in two by-elections in 2012. Over 160 separate reports were investigated in one of the most comprehensive investigations ever conducted by the police and the Electoral Commission. Not a single one was found to have merit.

Not long after came claims that Rahman had been using “bogus” canvassers pretending to be from Tower Hamlets Homes. Another investigation was instigated at public expense and once again no evidence was found.

And then there was Panorama, aired just two weeks before the purdah period. Panorama claimed dodgy dealings with grants; it cited the Mayor’s car as an example of his profligacy and highlighted his apparent reluctance to attend scrutiny meetings and answering questions in council, failing to point out that Rahman has attended more scrutiny sessions and answered more questions in council than his Labour counterparts in Newham and Lewisham.

As for the car (now scrapped) it is a shame it was a Merc, but Mayors and Council leaders across the UK use similar transport. As for the rest, police found “no new credible evidence” of fraud and there are serious questions as to the process followed by the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles in sending in the inspectors.

Pickles claims to have had long-standing concerns about Tower Hamlets but chose to act weeks before an election. Not only that, these concerns were never raised with Rahman directly and repeated offers to meet went unanswered.

And now, despite securing 36,000 first preferences to Labour’s 27,000 on a high turnout, Rahman is again under the cosh with his beaten opponents claiming voter intimidation, harassment and fraud. Their hook for the story is the delayed European Election count – delayed, it appears, by the stringent Electoral Commission protocols put in place at the behest of opposition candidates to ensure the count was absolutely accurate and fair.

Those complaining in such lurid terms are beaten opposition politicians with a direct and vested interest in the story they’re selling to the national media. The fact they are complaining to the media, not the authorities, speaks volumes as to their motivation.

As Labour Group Political Assistant from 2008-10 I witnessed first-hand the party’s descent into civil war. The racial element has been massively played up, but for me it was a battle between Old and New Labour, between ex-student politicos, lobbyists and machine politicians on the one side and grassroots local campaigners who could actually mobilise a the vote on the other.

The fact that the middle class Blairites were almost exclusively white and the working class activists mainly Bangladeshi is an accident of history, as is the fact that Rahman came to power at a time when fear of Muslims and “Islamisation” is at an all time high.

It is these accidents, not his policy achievements that have dominated the narrative of his time in office, along with a resolute refusal by the Labour and the Tories in Tower Hamlets to work with him.

Lutfur’s not perfect by any means but all he’s asked is to be judged as any other local politician, with fair comparison to his fellow mayors and for people to judge him on his record. That has never happened or come close to happening.

In May 2010 as Leader, Rahman led the Labour Party to buck the national trend and gain councillors. He then won the Labour selection by a landslide. He won again as an Independent in the mayoral election in October of that year and last Thursday 37,390 people voted for him to be Mayor.

Rather than trying to ignore these facts or blaming the electorate or the system or making common cause with the Tories that are our natural foes the Labour Party needs to think hard on why that many natural Labour voters have consistently supported a man they so vilify.

One thing I can say for sure is that it isn’t an ethnic thing. I’m not a Bangladeshi and neither are many of the “Lutfurites” I know. I’m a middle-class north Londoner with Pakistani parents, a degree from a good university and a social conscience. I came to the East End wanting to work for the party I loved. I wanted to do some good. I wasn’t expecting a civil war, but when it happened, I went with my conscience. I’m still a party member and put my X next to the rose for the Euro ballot.

The last six years in Tower Hamlets has been nothing more than a civil war that got out of hand; it spilled out of the Labour Group room and into the Council chamber. If those who still seem unable to accept the result continue as they are, it will spill out onto the streets where even the cleverest machine politicians will not be able to manage it.

Lutfur has again said he’ll work with anyone who will work with him. One side in this ridiculous conflict has paused to stop and think.

It is easy to produce a well written nicely manicured article when you have time to sit down, write it, check and re-check it but when you are in the moment and you have twitter in your hands, the truth seems to slip out.

Lutfur Rahmans supporters continually abuse their opposition on Twitter and Luftur so far has done nothing about it. In fact he encaurages it by calling for a twitter storm every time something doesn’t go his way.

If you really believe in fairness for all then show it in your day to day actions and words and not just in nicely planned articles and press releases. Then maybe people will want to work with you.

I think it actually said he failed to attend O&S – and he failed to answer questions in Full Council (not O&S). Both of which he’s done more than the other mayors which is the point that this piece makes.

But semantics aside, I agree that accountability needs to be improved. Lutfur has in the past been unduly shy, both in respect of council meetings and the press.

I think this can be a watershed for improvement in that. Ken Livingstone held regular general press conferences and never left while a single journo’s hand remained raised. I think that will be something to look at too.

He had no trouble (apart from being emotional) in answering questions on the spot in the post-result press conference so is clearly capable of doing this.

He has a real opportunity to draw lines, change approach and address critics. And bring the grants process back into the open. Maybe get this residents’ advisers board idea I floated to be part of that process.

I reckon if there isn’t a positive, and reconciliatory, change from all parties, then it will all end in tears for the East End. I’m sure all would agree that none of the TH parties have covered themselves in glory in recent years. We’ve got a chance to do things better now. Vital that all realise the importance of this moment.

“The Tower Hamlets problem” seems to me to be to be a conflation of a lot of “problems” arising within different groups for various reasons.

In the middle of it is the ordinary Tower Hamlets citizen who’s wondering what on earth has happened to make us the laughing stock of Europe.

Don’t assume that all the people who are complaining about the current state of affairs are the politicians. While that may very well be happening, to pretend the complaints are just from disgruntled politicians or party activists would be a gross misrepresentation of what people think about the state of politics in Tower Hamlets

I don’t disagree with your analysis of what went wrong with the Labour Party – ’twas ever thus. I think you’ll also find that particular type of scenario played out in various constituencies across the land – only the names of the players are different. Indeed it seems to be we’ve had more than enough evidence that there are some pretty poisonous relationships within the politicians and/or candidates from within the Bengali community within Tower Hamlets.

With respect to the investigations, I was very much under the impression that the Lutfur Rahman canvassers who represented themselves as being from Tower Hamlets Homes was an ongoing Police Investigation.

I’m sure the chap from Love Wapping with be along very soon to set the record straight.

I also understand that there are grant(s) (connected to the Brady Centre? and others?) under Police Investigation – and that these investigations started before the Panorama programme (hence the Police comment there are no NEW investigations as a result of that programme)

Bottom line – it’s rather a lot of investigations and they are not all concluded.

I was talking to a friend about ‘the current situation’ last night. His opinion was that the main problem in Tower Hamlets is a very old one.
* There are just too many people wanting to be involved with politics to pursue their own personal agendas or to improve their financial circumstances or those of their friends.
* Included within those will be some who are just downright crooked. It’s a perennial problem for all local authorities not just Tower Hamlets. However criminal convictions of councillors and councillor supporters/funders does not help persuade that it’s not a problem of some significance in this borough.
* Finally, there are just too few people who are actually involved because they want to contribute and work for the community as a whole – and who do things by the book and never ever generate an investigation into what they’ve been up to.

The electorate aren’t stupid. They know the councillors who put the hours in and do the work and ask the questions and get the results. That’s why you often get people voting for good Councillors rather than political parties.

Tower Hamlets would be in a very much better place with far fewer problems if rather more politicians focused their time on putting the hours in doing the real work of a councillor and spent rather less time on the political infighting.

Re putting the hours in – you’re right. Marc Francis and Rabina Khan are hugely popular regardless of party because they do more casework than anyone else.

As for the Wapping canvassers – a lot of people think the likelihood is that they said they were from Tower Hamlets First (which no-one had heard of last November) and Mark thought they said Tower Hamlets Homes.

I mean, it just wouldn’t be logical to say they were THH. It wouldn’t be rational. People thinking ‘those nice people from THH who came to ask us about our issues’ wouldn’t win Lutfur any votes. THH isn’t on the ballot paper.

Great. And if evidence of wrongdoing is established beyond reasonable doubt, I will be the first to concede.

Nigel Evans is currently spearheading a campaign to afford anonymity to rape suspects. Famous people being accused of rape sells papers – and tars them for life, regardless of whether it’s ever proven.

I’m not sure I agree with his campaign (for obvious reasons) but similarly, black/Muslim political scandal sells papers like nothing else. So allegations are up in lights when they’re just allegations – the police probe into fraud on the basis of Pickles’ file was on the front page of the Standard. When it was dropped, it was probably a footnote on page 30.

This country has a long legal tradition of innocent until proven guilty, and a burden of proof. It’s important to remember that when talking about allegations – so far nothing has been proven. Maybe these allegations will be – but I think it’s unlikely.

Would be interested to know who these ‘lot of people’ are Oldford1? And why do you claim that I misheard ‘Tower Hamlets First’ for ‘Tower Hamlets Homes’?

I don’t think we have met so it’s unlikely you were in my flat that day. And if ‘no-one had heard of Tower Hamlets First’ then (which is nonsense of course) how could I have misheard ‘Tower Hamlets Homes’ for a political group which I had never heard of?

But you are quite right that it would not be logical for these people to say they were from Tower Hamlets Homes or even to say what they did in fact say and is contained in my witness statement to the MPS:

““Hello, we are from Tower Hamlets Homes and we are wondering how the Mayor can help you on the estate?,” [made from notes made within the hour]. See http://bit.ly/19OB2vq for full details.

It is accurate to say that this wouldn’t be rational though. Stupid would be a better word.

It would also be stupid to send more ‘mystery canvassers’ onto the Greenbank only a month or two later. And stupid for the people who I encountered just before the election on the Greenbank who for some reason hid from both myself and the police officer who came to find out what they were doing.

Or stupid for their bosses who turned up a little while later to tell me ‘We are the Mayors volunteers’ and then get very upset when I repeated those words back to them.

That’s stupid.

You are quite right though, THH was not on the ballot paper. You do the residents of our borough a great service by bringing this issue back into the public eye. Why were these people claiming to be from Tower Hamlets Homes but canvassing for the Mayor? A THH investigation concluded that they were not THH employees and a TH Council investigation concluded that they were not TH Council employees. So what organisation did they belong to? An organisation linked to Mayor Lutfur as the following letters sent from his office to me referencing the issues I had mentioned to these women is a good indicator, no?

There is an active investigation by the MPS into these events and I am confident they will find out the facts.

I am sure the residents of our borough will be able to make sense of the MPS report. After all, we ain’t stupid you know.

And as you seem to be so good at knowing what I think can you tell me what I am going to have for dinner tonight please?

Then there are allegations which have sufficient substance to merit investigation by the police

Then there are allegations which have sufficient merit to warrant an arrest

…and then there are ones that the DPP decides merit prosecution

There’s a lot of stages between people tapping on a door with a campaign leaflet and a result of one sort or another – and these can happen at any stage.

I think everybody understands that.

My view is that the use of the word allegation or investigation does not suggest guilt given that there are so many other stages and checks and balances before things are established one way or the other. They just mean something has happened which merits the proper people taking a closer look at it.

Or do you have an entirely different understanding of these words?

I’m just using them to reflect what I understand to be the current status quo.

I think the rule on press coverage in this country is if you are by definition “in the public domain” e.g. an elected MP or Councillor and/or you put yourself in the spotlight don’t be surprised if the press spotlight you. I’m not saying it’s right – but until they sort out the awful mess post News of the World/Leveson etc that seems to be the way it works.

If you want to run as a politician don’t be surprised if people start turning over stones.

Or are you saying they turn over a lot more stones just because somebody is Bengali?

i think also Mark it would be stupid to trust your word or your account on this. A simple glance at your blogs and tweets indicate that you are not very partisan in your approach and have been pretty much campaigning for Biggs. So essentially it is your word against theirs. They say they were from Tower Hamlets First, you say they were from Tower Hamlets Homes and you make a song and dance about it on your blog, realising you are probably getting more hits then you have ever had before. Then you contine to flog the dead horse in a bid to gain as much hits as possible realising you are on to a winner here.

As opposed to trusting somebody who has made a statement to the Metropolitan Police about the incident and what was said to him – in the full knowledge that if he lied he could be in very serious trouble?

If it were the case that these young women said they were from Tower Hamlets First (even assuming this organisation were in existence at the time) rather than Tower Hamlets Homes. Have they actually come forward to speak to the Police and clarify their actions. Surely this would be the simplest way conclude the matter

What I find more shocking, is the response to this saga in an open council meeting. Alibaba Choudhury needs taking to task with his vile, vicious and libelous comments about Mark. Then again, anyone who speaks out about their rotten tactics and bad practice gets similar treatment – Alibaba is a consummate professional after all!

I and all the people I know that voted against Lutfur couldn’t care less what race or colour he is.

It is his way of doing things we don’t like: closed meetings; secrecy; lack of accountability and transparency; the crying wolf (or should I say racist and islamophobe); replacing position after position with “his man” regardless of ability.

With regard to policies I don’t use many: the charging for removal of bulky items has seen the borough become a tip; rubbish collection fiascos; the deterioration in the borough’s parks under his watch (sacking the excellent Head of Parks and replacing him with effectively an events manager). I can’t stand all the money spent on translation services and mother tongue grants. They hold back integration. I greatly admire keeping services for the elderly and only wished my mum lived in this borough.

I have mixed feelings about the money given to students by the Mayor’s Awards. I am sure they help increase voting turnouts! But that’s the problem, they seem like a bribe. If I were a young voter being given that sort of money then sure I’d vote for him. But £400-500 per year is half my council tax.

I don’t doubt that you’re not motivated by racism at all, John.
The problem is that a lot of the media focus on stuff only exists because Lutfur is the one and only black mayor in Britain.

Many of the claims are simply parochial, bureaucratic flaws that happen in every council – yet they’re headline news here because of the unique focus on him. And a lot of that focus is to do with him being Muslim.

For example, these allegations about the leader of Greenwich council (http://853blog.com/2013/12/08/greenwich-council-bullying-the-cleaners-story-revealed/) are far more worrying than anything Lutfur’s been accused of. But who’s heard of this outside of Greenwich? The Labour Mayor of Lewisham has a chauffeur driven car, but who knew that? Translation services and mother tongue weren’t Lutfur’s idea – they came in under Labour – but they weren’t in the news until it could be part of a story about a Muslim mayor.

Every left-wing policy anywhere is a bribe. Or in other language, redistribution of wealth is what poor people vote for. Nothing too strange about that. The Lib Dems encouraged poor people to vote for them because they’d do away with the income tax on the first £10k of earnings. You could call that a bribe…or just democracy.

It’s rather insulting for a white person such as you to tell someone who identifies as black that he is not black. You will know that politically, black encompasses Asian people too (http://vimeo.com/73587973). I didn’t say he was African or Caribbean.

Well you may say “politically” black encompasses Asian people too…. in some sort of base and oversimplified black/white / them/us analogy but that’s socialist junk as you well know and something that sensible people do not have to agree with. If it’s political then where do you place black people who do not politically associate themselves with as you’d say black politics? What about Black UKIP candidates? Are they white? Black Christians whose origins are from the Caribbean will often say they have little or nothing in common with Asian Muslims and why should be told by white Mark Francis what political colour they are. What a load of socialist claptrap.

I too on have noticed a sharp decline in rubbish collection, outside my flat is very often a tip now. Was also shocked to find out there is a charge when I needed a bulky item picked up recently, is that new?

Can’t believe that you can have free collections if on housing benefit. Why are the ones of us that work and pay our taxes being punished?

For what it’s worth I don’t think Lutfur cares about the colour of someone’s skin. I do however think a large number of Bangla voters voted for him based on his bangladeshi roots as he “is one of ours”. I really think his main voting base are in, that sense, being racist.

I didn’t say Rahman introduced funding mother tongue stuff, but he sure as hell didn’t get rid of it. If Biggs had got in it would have been political suicide to cut funding to mother tongue spending even though it is TH’s interest to spend that money on English lessons! Rahman is the only one who could get away with reducing/transferring this funding.

“You couldn’t make it up” – are you having a giraffe. The debate has been about the skin colour since before the election. You don’t get to call someone racist (as a THF candidate did about Biggs on my doorstep – “he was kicked out of Labour 25yrs ago because he was racist”), reference the KKK or anyone of countless other THF racial smears without referencing skin colour directly or otherwise.

If we (and I’m including myself spent 10% of the time we spend talking political hyperbole on developing policies to better the lot of TH residents then we would have a cracking borough.

I didn’t notice Sir Robin Wales having to commit political suicide in Newham or fail to be reelected despite the fact that he resolutely refuses to fund any organisation which is about sponsoring ways of making/keeping people different.

He’s emphatically not about disrespecting people’s cultural heritage. He’s very much about the promotion of community cohesion.

His point is that it’s the Council’s job to promote community cohesion and the best way of doing that is to invest funds in bringing people together not keeping them apart e.g. by helping adults people learn to speak English.

If people or their religious organisations want to invest in their cultural heritage that’s absolutely fine – just as long as:
* they pay for it themselves
* it’s not funded by the Council Taxes which have to be paid by everyone in the borough.

There are far more important things which the Council needs to spend its money on and which it MUST spend its money on – as in it’s a statutory requirement.

This article makes me think of a doctor persuading his patient that there is nothing wrong and he is simply a hypochondriac. Arguing that the tests were done and all is clear. Telling him to get on with his life. That’s until an undetected cancer takes over and patient dies……………

Poplar Town Hall was sold for little more than the price of a 3 bedroom townhouse in that area. At the time it was earmarked for office use, which would not have attracted much interest in a residential area. After it was sold, a cabinet meeting allowed a change of use, so that it could be converted to a 25 room hotel.
It is quite obvious that if the change of use had been agreed before the sale, and that it had then been advertised widely, the market value would have been many millions of pounds.
It is clear that Tower Hamlets have not acted in the best interests of residents in this case.
The fact that the buyer, who can now make a large profit, had an association with channel S, would lead any reasonable person to suspect that this may well be more than just incompetence.

I don’t care about the politics of labour, and I am not even british, being myself an undesired and unwanted european union citizen living and working in London. However Tower Hamlets is dirty, filthy dirty, it’s dangerous, it’s scary, a lot of traffic lights with no pedestrian xing, a lot of drug users, pushers, a lot of people driving like raving lunatics and a lot of scary people around, of all colours and creed, at all time of day and night.
Tower Hamlets is synonymous with crime, drugs and dirt.
Your Mayor has a huge budget and a lot of resources and yet in the 4 years he has been in charge the borough has become, if possible, even dirtier and scarier and more dangerous – see death by bike, by knife or else.
I don’t know if your mayor is not able to address this because of race, personal culture, because of lack of competence, I don’t know and I don’t care.
It would have been nice to have given someone else a chance to show if it is possible to turn this borough into a decent place where people are more respectful and don’t discard everything on the streets without even a single thought.
Thinking at the past four years, it is absolutely terrifying to think what the borough will be at the end of the next four.
I personally hope I will have found a way to move somewhere else by then.

OK to call Biggs a racist then is it? No of course it isn’t. Is it OK to call Cllr Gold a Zionist queer? No of course it isn’t. Welcome to the London Borough of One Rule for Team Lutfur & another rule for Everyone Else.

The claim in the interview that one of Lutfur’s councillors shouted that phrase at Cllr Golds in a meeting is absolutely untrue. If it were true, the member would have had to resign immediately and it would have been headline news. Be careful what you believe.

Good point about the opposing parties complaining to the media, instead of the authorities, but I disagree about the racial element being played up by Lutfur’s Party. The younger residents of Tower Hamlets look up to him – as a result, some of the abuse John Biggs received on Twitter was disgusting.

Comments are a waste of time. Supporters need to come out and see for themselves the environment we live in. Temporary offices in the middle of LANSBURY have doubled and are used for religious purposes instead of OPEN SPACE. Minimum standards for 1000 population no longer exist …..

“… Rahman has attended more scrutiny sessions and answered more questions in council than his Labour counterparts in Newham and Lewisham”

Please Lutfur Rahman come to Newham.

At the last Mayoral Questions in Newham I arrived early, had to fill in a form with all my personal details, was asked endless questions at the door by ‘advisors’ as to where I was from, then once my question was inspected I was allowed to ask my question to Robin Wales directly who then ignored what I had said completely.

He told me he had in fact answered my question even if I didn’t like the answer.

Lutfur has just won the election to be mayor. I will repeat – he has just won the election. It is not like he’s lost the election and we have to sit down and analyse where things have gone wrong and what Lutfur needs to change.

There is absolutely nothing to change. People elected him because they like what he is doing. He will be foolish to change any of that.

Like I said before, Lutfur should be endorsed by Marmite. You either love him or hate him. There is no middle ground. No sitting on the fence.

Please get back to your day job and accept that nothing will change or at least, nothing should change.

If you are desperate for change, you will have to wait for another four years to make change happen. Put your stopwatch on for four years.

John Jee, Charity Commission’s remit is limited to investigating charities. So, you are putting together stuff for the Charity Commission to investigate charities. How does that relate to this debate about Lurfur?

Come on tell us, you don’t think Charity Commission can do something to Lutfur? Make me laugh with the fallacy of your argument and the foolishness of your thinking.

Agreed Kay – good point – however the Council Tax exemption only applies to premises owned by a charity that have been unoccupied for less than six months. The exemption terminates after six months or as soon as the premises become occupied.

The Charity Commission is actually very strict about charitable status because of all the potential financial benefits.

Being a Trustee of a Charity is also not something to do lightly. If you become involved you need to know (not just trust) that everything being said and done on behalf of the organisation is OK and by the book – otherwise you can be liable.

I think I had a point there. And yes you can have mixed use of premises. Presumably all those “charities” applied for exemption from business rates. But are they really charities? We don’t know as many of them failed to file accounts. We also don’t know how many businesses which should pay business rates are “sheltered” on those “charity” and tax free premises.
A very efficient Westminster and Chelsea council issued its local church with a nice fat bill after they found out that church premises were partly used by local businesses.

Don’t forget that in relation to fuel and power costs relating to premises used jointly by businesses and charities that they have to provide a the fuel supplier with a certificate declaring the percentage used by each.

Misrepresent that percentage deliberately for the sake of the VAT benefit and that’s fraud.

However to qualify for the VAT relief, you have to provide evidence to HMRC that the charity is registered with the Charity Commission, have a Charity Number and evidence that the organisation has been recognised as a charity for tax purposes.

Charities have to register if they have income of over £5,000 unless they are exempt or excepted and there are very specific criteria for which organisations can claim those reliefs

It’s perfectly possible to produce a list if all the organisations registered as a charity in Tower Hamlets. Use the search and then search by a specific area – and you’ll get 20 pages worth of the 710 charities in Tower Hamlets

or £155 total for five boards. This leaves £2,345 for the laptop, specialised software and the “fundraising consultant”.

How was the remainder of taxpayer money dispersed? If we assume £1,000 for the laptop and software, it looks like the remainder of taxpayer money – perhaps as much as £1,345 – paid for a “fundraising consultant”.

also they found companies who formed got award and closed but never filed annual reports.
and more than one company too -they said about 40.

I corresponded with site creator three times -very nervous said they had received disturbing threats (I have no detail). now their email address on the web sight is removed and they ask interested parties to tweet.

very smart people -as they write “make correspondents say it in public or not at all. ”

their sight feedback pages mentions people trying to email them spyware -I think someone wants to know who they are and shut them up.

in their last email they told me Central Government was in contact for their data and was arranging meeting. that was second week of May.
now email no longer works — “Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender”

they did nothing wrong. as we say in Spain, Beuna suerte y vaya con Dios Amigo

Well PWC is going to look pretty stupid if it hasn’t picked up all the issues highlighted by that site.

I mean all he is doing is using publicly accessible data which was made public precisely to stop the kind of wrongdoing which the MPs engaged in with the expenses furore.

We can all download it and we can all access it. (mass download anybody?)

The fact that people should be sending disturbing threats to somebody who is highlighting how this Council spends it money speaks volumes about the nature of SOME of the people who support the Mayor.

(Notice I said the word ‘some’ – I am certainly not saying this about everybody.)

I’d say I hope he has reported it to the Police but after reading this report today I’m beginning to wonder whether the Borough Commander understands the meaning of the word intimidation and whether instead he is permanently ‘out to lunch’.

I think maybe it would be wise for people to reflect that there are quite a lot of people who do find large groups of ANYBODY intimidating – whether they are teenagers, football fans, enthusiastic party supporters or a group of partygoers who’ve had a bit too much to drink.

Like I said I do think people jump to the ‘race’ explanation a bit too fast sometimes when there is an alternative perspective which is perfectly plausible.

‘You couldn’t make it up’ – you live on cloud cuckoo land. Someone sets up a website and puts loads of nonsense on there and you expect government appointed auditors to pick up “all the issues highlighted by that site”! You have absolutely no idea how things work. The auditors will do their work independently.

so are you saying The Council knowingly published deceptive data? Or there are mistakes on that site? I’ve looked at a few cases on that site, he hasn’t made mistakes i.e, what is published on that web site was published on the councils web site. In a not so easily searchable manner, mind you. The money was just given away to third parties, without serious consideration in many cases. That a private citizen could look and find so many examples — well, why don’t you tell us who decided these awards? PWC knows. The guy who made that web site knows. Who is just throwing taxpayer money at various groups? Why toss money at various groups? That is what the government auditors will be determining.

No, its obvious you haven’t taken the time to look at the web site before you started to rubbish it. That says a lot about your intellect, your reasoning process and how little respect (pun intended) we should afford your views.

Second, you’ve been asked this before but you wimped out so please this time man up and answer – are you Abjoh Miah, newly elected councillor for St. Peters Ward? If so, are you commenting in an official capacity i.e., do your views as stated here represent those of Tower Hamlets First? Or are they your own?

Please answer the question this time, as last time you suddenly left the tread. But I promise you someone will raise it again and again when you post here until you change your alias.

Ted – do you have a policy regarding Councillors identifying themselves? We’ve seen many, many Councillors identifying themselves, while others seem to post pseudonyms. Can you please clarify?

Fair enough, you’re not the Councillor. I will remember that going forward. Thanks for the reply.

But the first question still stands. And I now note you admit to having looked at the website.

Since he claims he’s sourcing directly from the Council, please clarify your view – are you claiming the Council published nonsense? I’ve looked at several awards, then looked at the Council web site. They match.

So where is the “loads of nonsense” you claim is on that web site? That voting is not the nonsense. Specifically, what awards are “nonsense”? If you’re suggesting the Council’s web site I suspect many might agree, those awards are indeed nonsense.

contains “loads of nonsense” it should be pretty easy for you to help us understand. Again, I’ve looked and haven’t seen any “nonsense”, unless you are suggesting that council taxpayers money, £1,345 for a “fund-raising consultant” is “loads of nonsense”.

It which case many might agree with you.

If a private citizen (good on him) noticed PWC has noticed. And where there are small sums being treated so casually, the large sums?

And companies that have been given taxpayer money, then disappeared? Are you saying that isn’t nonsense? I pay council tax, I disagree.

Finally, that web site says they have Section 106 data. I wonder what will be published next?

@Sirus You seem to have a bit of chip on your shoulder. Of course people would find gangs of 8-10 heavies from any ethnicity intimidating. Can I remind you that these “enforcers” were approaching fellow Bengali’s. Can you explains why this happens? It is obviously an officially authorised tactic by THF (as it has been in the past by Labour and Respect). What is it that a dozen people can impart to a voter, that one or two cannot?

Marc P, that site lists all the various community groups who received grants and then it asks people to give the award a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’. That is utterly ridiculous. It is not for us to give thumbs up or down. These organisations went through a process before they received their grants. Nobody is just throwing money at them.

“the decisions for all awards over £1,000 were to be made by the Mayor under his executive authority. “

this is straight off the Council’s own web site. Or is that “loads of nonsense” as well?

Care to explain the process to us again please? Where “fundraising consultants” can receive £1,345 pounds of my council tax money? For doing what exactly? Its not explained. And apparently dozens of zombie companies can be given money, only to disappear? For doing what exactly? Its not explained.

And don’t try to change the subject to arrows on that web site, because PWC will be focused on the money not the arrows. When small sums aren’t treated with proper respect what about larger amounts of money? Section 106 allocations are measured in millions of pounds. Here we see how a few hundred thousand pounds was handled. Can we trust such poor decision makers with our council tax money? With millions? Have they earned our trust? Read the account above re: what happened to the people repeating the councils own data.

So I ask again, what was the process for approval? Who was in charge?

Hint: the process is described on the moderngov web site and I proved the link. Do read it and report back. Look at those awards then look at all the companies that received large sums of money then disappeared. Who approved those awards again?

Marc P and ‘You couldn’t believe it, but I’ll make up some nonsense anyway’ – I will say this to both of you for one last time. The whole concept of listing all these grants so the likes of you can go there and concoct all sorts of theories is nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. I have looked at that website. I have looked at the awards. I understand how it was all allocated. I am satisfied that everything is above board. I am also telling you for free that the auditors will not have anything at all to say about this entire process or how the grants were allocated. Mark my word and remember what I said when the auditors report back. I’ll not come here and say “I told you so!”.

This is in no way unique. I have come across other local authorities where they hand out similar grants to various community groups or associations. There is nothing dodgy or fishy about it.

You can either accept this and move on or spend significant amounts of time on this and get stressed. The choice is yours. For what it’s worth, it looks like you have plenty of time on your hands to waste on some useless nonsense when you know that government appointed auditors are looking at everything and will report back in due course.

You have a background in accountancy then? ACCA perhaps, or just an “internet expert” ? If are an account then are you ok with companies forming, getting a Mayor’s Award, then disappearing without filing annual reports? Or did you miss that part? Some of their tweets indicated over 40 companies seem to have done this. I can’t find the tweet mentioning how much money was involved but 40 companies having money tossed at them? That’s not on. I doubt its legal, but I’m not a Solicitor. Good thing a Solicitor is looking at the Council’s data, what you call “useless nonsense”.

“I have come across other local authorities where they hand out similar grants to various community groups or associations. There is nothing dodgy or fishy about it.”

Again, Sir, you seek to deceive. You know other local authorities have a process to award grants. The process involves a board and the board makes the decisions on awards.

In Tower Hamlets – as proven by the Councils own web site and linked to above – one man decides the awards.

Do try harder to deceive, you’re not very good at it !!

“You can either accept this and move on or spend significant amounts of time on this and get stressed. The choice is yours. For what it’s worth, it looks like you have plenty of time on your hands to waste on some useless nonsense “

You, Sir, come across as stressed and willing to lie or distort to discredit the web site. Can’t help but wonder why? One of their tweets said they they have cross referenced every company with directors and provided that information to PWC. I’d be stressed if I were just such a director.

You seem to be devoting lots of time here over what you yourself call “some useless nonsense”. Why? If its “some useless nonsense” why do you care so much?

All you have done is draw attention to the web site and the problem. I’ve looked at that site in far more detail now. I have forwarded the link to my MP. With a scorcher of a complaint letter. My wife did the same and so will the kids. Each and every one of them since they vote. And the extended family. Not emails either – letters, delivered by registered mail, since those are taken far more seriously. That’s a large number of letters you’ve kicked off with your attacks on what you yourself call “some useless nonsense”.

Sir, if you set out to draw attention to the web site then your task is complete.

Hate to break this to you A Miah but your statement: “The whole concept of listing all these grants so the likes of you can go there and concoct all sorts of theories is nonsense.” is wrong.

The purpose of Open Data (the hint is in the word ‘Open’) is to allow anyone to examine the way in which public bodies spend money. If due process is followed by this or any other public body when allocating grants or funding then there should be no problem.

If you check the Council’s website page listing Payments to Suppliers (http://bit.ly/1fo2iNe) you will find these words:

“We hope it will inform people about what we do, and encourage people to challenge how we spend money. It is your money and we welcome comments.”

Tower Hamlets Council is inviting residents to challenge the administration on how it spends its money. That is what is being done and that is what will continue to be done.

After all, it would be rude to turn down their invitation, wouldn’t it? And I hate to be thought rude.

You may have some awareness of the process used to get grants – but I wonder if you are aware of the process used to check organisations prior to the payment of grants.

I do – because I’ve managed the team which has done the checks and it’s been my signature on the piece of paper to say an organisation can get its grant.

I do – because I have stopped organisations getting grants when they fail to file their annual accounts and/or fail to provide receipts and/or fail to provide any number of other bits of documentation that they have spent the money as indicated. It’s public money and consequently it doesn’t get paid out unless certain tests are met. If it has been then that’s professional negligence in my book.

If the Council is running a proper grants system, there will be a complete audit trail from:
* the application and full documentation received from identified individuals who have to sign that the statements they are making are true, through
* the processes used for vetting the information supplied
* the matching of criteria used to decide grants to the information supplied by applicants
* the decision-making process – indicating who decided what on a formal basis
* the schedule of approved grants to which organisation for what defined purpose
* the documentation provided prior to any payments being made e.g. to establish this is a proper organisation and properly constituted
* the documentation provided prior to specific payments being made
* the receipt of annual accounts and documentation of performance indicators after grant payments are made.
* inspections and checks on the organisation and its activities

The reason people do all this is because it’s PUBLIC MONEY not a free hand-out!

I expect that PWC will have
* audited the rigour of the process used and compared it to best practice elsewhere
* at a minimum, sample checked a number of organisations thoroughly through the process
* investigated all those organisations identified to them (or Pickles or whoever) by complainants

No – I expect PWC to have picked up all the data via the council records they have access to.

I guess if they are looking at the website they might be checking to see if he spotted anything they missed……..

As Mark says – it is far from loads of nonsense – all the data is there because
(1) it’s Council data relating to finanical transactions and
(2) it has to be published by the Council (they have no option in the matter – it’s mandatory) and
(3) it’s freely available to any one of us
(4) specifically because they knew if they published it local electors would start inspecting it and highlighting irregularities and asking questions.
(5) which is what has happened!

Like I said – it could be “egg on the face” time if an amateur sleuth finds stuff that very expensive auditors don’t come up with.

I do sincerely hope you’re not Cllr A Miah because right now you’re looking extremely silly for not knowing one of the very basic ways local authorities have to be accountable to council tax payers.

[…] ruined his boss’s great re-election triumph, Mr Zaidi has today written a quite extraordinary post on the Trial by Jeory blog saying: “If those who still seem unable to accept the result continue as they are, it will spill […]

What a sick response to this thoughtful article.
‘He will no doubt say that this is not a threat, but a prediction. The truth is that whatever his intentions it will be read as a threat.’
Well – that’s not ‘the truth’. Because there are tens of commentators in this thread, many of whom are critical of Lutfur – and nobody read it as meaning that before Gilligan wrote his piece.

But now, thanks to Gilligan, if you search ‘Lutfur’ on Twitter you will see that half the world believes Lutfur today threatened violence on the streets of Tower Hamlets.

Nice work, Andrew. A typically constructive contribution from you there.
Particularly given that most of your readers (judging on the comment section) appear to be from the ‘deport’em’, ‘hang’em’, ‘gas’em’ school of thought.

Jay Kay and others who obviously love Gilligan, go and read some of the comments under Gilligan’s blog. Gilligan writes for that crowd baying for immigrants’ and Muslims’ blood. It is extraordinary that a quality broadsheet like Telegraph allows such comments on its website.

Anyway, Gilligan has a crowd cheering him on to make all sorts of wild and preposterous claims.

Kaz Zaidi’s blog title is “A civil war that started in Labour risks spilling onto the streets”. Zaidi is not threatening or predicting violence. He merely states that that there is a risk that things will spiral out of control if the polarisation of views in TH politics is not resolved anytime.

Gilligan obviously want any conciliation. He is advising the Labour party not to let Lutfur back in. It is as if the Labour party will take advice from the Conservative London mayor’s adviser and a columnist in the Tory Telegraph!

Kazim states that the Mayor would like us to judge him on his record. Fine. Leaving out all the other stuff Lutfur has to remember that he represents all the citizens of Tower Hamlets. So when he does something in his official capacity he does it on behalf of everyone in the Borough. So presumably everybody should be perfectly satisfied with him writing, as Mayor, character references for a convicted sex offender and a convicted fraudster so that they might get more lenient sentences. I presume his training as a lawyer helped him to make these decisions.
Whatever else, and it seems there are plenty of other grounds, just these two actions make him unsuitable to represent the majority of law-abiding citizens in the Borough.

Lutfur clarified all of this. He was duped into providing the reference for the mini cab driver. Lutfur did not know what the guy was charged with. It was a very generic statement anyway.

As for Mahee Ferdous Jalil, he is a bit of a wheeler dealer, but has done a great deal for the Bengali speaking community. He launched Channel S which continues to provide a great service to the Bangladeshi community. Lutfur was just highlighting that. People charged with offences will often produce letters of support, references in their pleas in mitigation. Anyone familiar with the criminal justice system will know how it all works.

Lutfur’s reference for Mahee Ferdous Jalil does not mean that Lutfur was asking for him to be freed – it just means that Lutfur was highlighting all the good work he had done in the past. This is then up for consideration by the judge whether to accept it as a ground for mitigation or not.

But of course! Lutfur was just lending a kindly Mayoral hand to distressed people. I have no doubt that if the Council prosecutes some single parent for benefit fraud on account of not declaring the £20 a week they get for picking up their neighbours kids from school the the Mayor will be sobbing before the magistrates for mercy.

But of course! If the victim of the rampant taxi driver was not of the Ummah then no crime was presumably committed and therefore the Mayor was quite right to apply Sharia principles. I’ll let him off that one.

But was the fraudster only defrauding kaffar? Perhaps the Mayor can give us assurance on this matter?

Casual Commentator, you were making a good point about why Lutfur gave references to these criminals. Then, you shot yourself in the foot by making Islamophobic comments about ummah, sharia principles, kuffar and other nonsense.

Lutfur is not some Muslim fundamentalist if that is what you were suggesting. Lutfur received endorsement from the following faith leaders recently:

1. Leon Silver, President of East London Synagogue
2. Rev Giles Fraser
3. Rev Adam Atkinson, St Peter’s Church in Bethnal Green
4. Father Tom O’Brien, Our Lady of the Assumption Church in Bethnal Green
5. Captain Nick Coke, the Salvation Army

A Muslim fundamentalist would not receive support from Jewish and Christian faith leaders. Amongst other things, they said the following about Mayor Lutfur Rahman:

This is what the Jewish East End reported about Lutfur’s guest appearance at the synagogue’s 90th birthday party:

“The final speaker was Lutfur Rahman, Executive Mayor of Tower Hamlets. He wished everyone Salaam/shalom and said how glad he was to be able to play a role helping to protect Tower Hamlet’s faith buildings. The continuance of all faith communities in Tower Hamlets was precious to him, with none more so than the community at Nelson Street. He wished all present ‘Happy Birthday’ and was warmly applauded.”

I am not “Islamophobiac” whatever that means. I recognise that when Europe was in the dark ages it was thanks to that then “Golden Age” of Islam that te science (originally of the Greek “Golden Age) continued, developed and prospered. And yes, I know that the word Algebra comes from the name of the great Arab Muslim mathematician that produced this branch of mathematics. And I understand why the numerals we now use are called Arabic numerals.

My comments about Lutfur were not designed to cast aspersions on Muslims. They were rather tongue in cheek and I wanted all people to consider the Mayor’s motives.

It is no wonder Lutfur won if he has this smart guy (Kaz Zaidi) working for him. Just looked up his LinkedIn profile – he was educated at Westminster school and the University of Cambridge. That is good pedigree.

On the other hand, John Biggs had Josh Peck following him around everywhere. Peck is a toxic brand in Tower Hamlets. He formed a pact with the Tories just so that they could oppose Mayor Lutfur Rahman. Both Peck and Golds dragged the TH Labour Party down. You could understand why Golds would do that – he is a Tory! As for Peck, Labour party still has not realised what damage this one individual has done to the TH Labour Party.

“Never met a nice Rahman supporter” – your name is as comical as your views.

Go and speak to some of these ‘nice’ people who supported Mayor Lutfur Rahman recently:

1. Leon Silver, President of East London Synagogue
2. Rev Adam Atkinson, St Peter’s Church in Bethnal Green
3. Father Tom O’Brien, Our Lady of the Assumption Church in Bethnal Green
4. Captain Nick Coke, the Salvation Army

Perhaps you never met a nice supporter because you do not get out much. If you did, you would realise that most of the people in this borough support mayor Rahman, because he is “fair, accessible and accountable” – quote from TELCO letter supporting Lutfur. TELCO is the largest group network of community groups and activists in the East End.

‘Mr Cloud Cuckoo Land’ aka ‘You couldn’t make it up, but I’ll just make up nonsense’ – TELCO sent their letter of support to Lutfur on 30 April. Lutfur quoted from this letter during his election campaign, which TELCO did not like. Simples. It does not mean that TELCO had withdrawn their letter of support for Lutfur.

Here is an extract from the letter:

“To summarise, we have found Mayor Rahman to be fair, accessible and accountable regarding the Citizens proposals worked on together; he has treated Citizens leaders and members with respect and given due and generous recognition to our efforts to make Tower Hamlets the vibrant and successful Borough it is. We wish all the Mayoral candidates well and thank them for standing for office. Tower Hamlets Citizens will continue to work together for the common good and seek to hold the Mayor and their administration to account into the future – in the same way we do each other.”

You will see from the text of the letter that TELCO were trying to be fairly balanced by wishing all mayoral candidates well.

It says
“An East End community group says it was “quoted out of context” by the Mayor in a letter apparently supporting his bid for re-election.

In a statement released by his party Tower Hamlets First on Friday, Mayor Lutfur Rahman quoted the East London Communities Organisation (TELCO) praising his administration, calling this a “boost” for his campaign.

However, the head of the group’s umbrella organisation, London Citizens, said it’s letter, which had actually been sent weeks before, was no endorsement, and called the Mayor’s statement “unhelpful”.

The statement came the morning after both the Mayor and his Labour rival John Biggs signed up for the group’s post-election proposals.

Neil Jameson, founder of London Citizens, said: “The letter is not an endorsement of Lutfur Rahman. We don’t endorse candidates.

A Miah – I do not wish to revisit all of the arguments that get repeated over and over again on this site, but please do not assume that these “faith leaders” actually represent the adherents of their faith.
Part of the reason for the current political crisis is that some non-muslims assumed that muslim “faith leaders” represented their communities.

By see the light do you mean submission (which I understand Islam to mean but correct me if I am wrong) then dream on. I would no more embrace religion than vote Tory. But of course as I understand all religions to have come from a human desire to explain the world then they all add to human understanding but none of them can be all right. Personally I have a great regard for the ancient Greek pantheon. At least their gods had all the human virtues and (mostly) vices. Nobody believes in Zeus and the rest of them any more but I will admit to having a sneaking regard for Mighty Aphodite. lol

I want to thank every single person who voted in Thursday’s election. I have always said that Tower Hamlets has a uniquely vibrant civil society and that was proven by a 47.8 per cent turnout – the highest in London.

To the 37,395 people who voted for me, I want to thank you for judging me on my record. I have done my best over the last four years to shield local people from the worst cuts in local government history while still investing in the growth of our community.

I will work tirelessly to ensure that your trust in me is repaid over the next four years and that Tower Hamlets takes its rightful place alongside the cities of London and Westminster as one of the great commercial and cultural hubs of Europe.

To all those who did not vote for me and for the Tower Hamlets First councillors, I promise to work twice as hard to win your trust. The Directly Elected Mayoral system is about accountability and I am determined to serve each and every one of you.

Every single resident has the right to come to me directly with their concerns about any of the public services they receive, whether from the Council or any of our partners. Please make use of that right and help me to better serve the whole community.

The last 6 years of Tower Hamlets politics have been acrimonious. However on Thursday 22nd May, the people of Tower Hamlets delivered a mandate that it is up to all of us to respect. There is a clear majority, but it is also clear that there is a need for reconciliation. I have already said that I will work with GLA member John Biggs and I again extend my hand to the local Labour Party – let’s work together for the whole community.

Thank you all for taking part and for making your voices heard. I promise that over the next four years I will work very hard to deliver on my pledges and respect the mandate that I have been given to serve this great borough.

Jay Kay, it must have been past your bedtime which explains why you were yawning! Your parents should put you to bed by 9pm at the latest. Posting comments, blogging etc is all grown up stuff. You’ll have to grow up to have your turn.

Why state TL wanted inclusion across all of TH and then allow a statement on his behalf, by his spokesperson, to incite violence on the streets if his critics don’t shut up? Unbelievable behaviour in a democracy. Utterly unbelievable.

I’m sure Ted will confirm that (1) it’s not a statement on behalf of Lutfur by his spokesperson but an opinion piece by someone who is not his spokesperson and (2) it’s not inciting anything (unless you haven’t got a brain and need Andrew Gilligan to tell you what to think – nobody here read it as meaning that.)

“A civil war that started in Labour risks spilling onto the streets” this headline is not in any way conciliatory! Sorry adviser not spokesperson. Difference?

As a person of a certain age and many years residence in TH the current political climate frightens me. It was bad enough with Labour in charge but the nastiness, the outright polarity of both approach and opinion is worrying.

I have a very good brain. Thank you. I’ve seen first hand how such polarity by religion brings so much violence. I don’t want ever again to see people beaten up up in the street for being the wrong religion/colour/race/sexuality.

AYM, I hate to break it to you – there is not polarity by religion in TH politics. Lutfur is a Labour man. They threw him out, because they wanted their own ‘poodle’ in Helal Abbas. It backfired. Then, Labour tried a different trick by pulling out the second choice man from 2010 so that he could poll all the ‘second choice’ votes in 2014. Labour were mildly successful in 2014. They came top of ‘second pref’ votes except Lutfur was way ahead with the first choice votes and could not be caught. Simply put, it is a struggle between Lutfur’s team and the people pulling the strings behind Labour.

A Miah I think you and I live in a different planet! I mentioned my own evidence based religious discrimination, bullying, beating up etc.
I then said I didn’t want to see any of this happening based on religion/colour/sex/nationality happening in TH.
The comments in this article are inflammatory.
Sadly, it is happening in TH today and being ignored by the MSM.
Whatever happened to Jasmine, the non-Muslim, of Asian origin,shop assistant and magician, threatened by the “thought police” if she didn’t wear a hijab?
My newsagent, spoken to by a child in Urdu or Bengali, told this is a Bengali area. They are not of Asian origin but have brown skin. They gave him short shrift and said we speak English in England. Where is this nonsense coming from?
And it goes on!
Time for a break up of TH.

How can you go around smearing your opponents, reaching for the “racist” and islamaphobe” cards every other minute and then expect those very same people to welcome you with open arms? It isn’t a play where you shout “racist” on the stage and then come out hug and take the curtain call together.

I know an 80 yr old lady who is having problems getting back into Labour (she resigned over Iraq). But Lutfur and his army should be allowed back in? Yeah right. His cabinet have already shown their quest for power was stronger than their morals.

Tower Hamlets First is just Respect 2.0 They may think Tower Hamlets First and tomorrow the World Mwahahahaha!!! But world domination isn’t gonna happen guys.

By the way, interesting to hear what guys thought I meant about the charity commission, but no one was even “warm”. If anyone has any expertise in charity governance then please message me.

John Jee, Charity Commission is responsible for the registration, supervision and regulation of about 180,000 registered charities in England and Wales. Scotland and N Ireland have their own Charity Commission.

Charity Commission takes a risk-based approach, which means it is more interested in charities with a huge revenue (i.e. millions or hundreds of thousands of pounds).

If you have concerns about particular charities, you should raise those with the Charity Commission.

Incorrect, the Charity Commission might apply more effort to the larger based charities – as you would expect – however anybody thinking they don’t take an interest in smaller so-called charitable organisations who don’t fulfil the requirements of being a charity might get a very nasty surprise

It highlights the other bodies who also need to be involved in relation to specific types of complaints
e.g. The Fundraising Standards Board re complaints about how funds are raised or the expenditure on people involved with fundraising

[…] “The last six years in Tower Hamlets has been nothing more than a civil war that got out of hand; it spilled out of the Labour Group room and into the Council chamber,” he wrote on the Trial by Jeory blog.[1] […]

Sorry “Not met a nice Rahman supporter” but Islam has contributed to “western” culture and understanding. Mathematics is one instance. And the geometric patterns of Islamic architecture have had a profound inpact on western art and architecture.

Let’s get this in perspective all you who want to demonise Muslims. There is Islam and Islamism. There was a time, centuries ago, when Islam was a light in the darkness. But those days are long ago and Europe did eventually undergo the Enlightenment which unfortunately the Muslim world has lost out on. Muslims in the UK are lucky compared to Muslims, especially women, in many majority Muslim countries. The mildest example I shall give is of women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. There are other examples.
As far as I, an atheist, am concerned there are millions of Muslims who are victims of political Islam who we should all be wishing to support

Zaidi’s idiotic comments remind me of one (ig)noble Lord Ahmed who threatened to raise an army of 10,000 angry Muslims to march on the House of Lords, just because an invited audience there wanted to listen to Geert Wilders. As a result, dhimmi Jacqui Smith rescinded his permit to visit. However, she didn’t reckon on the resulting outcry which saw her backtracking.

They’re good at threatening, and at carrying out provided people are scared of them. Let’s not be, and if our leaders are then we deserve better and braver leaders.

[…] ruined his boss’s great re-election triumph, Mr Zaidi has today written a quite extraordinary post on the Trial by Jeory blog saying: “If those who still seem unable to accept the result continue as they are, it will spill […]

[…] full of middle class, Blairite, student, machine politicians, characterised in Kazim Zaidi’s ignorant post on this blog last week. The main plank of our manifesto was free school meals and a pledge to build 1,000 […]